COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION

Transcription

1 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO CIVIL DIVISION CITY OF CINCINNATI : City Hall : 801 Plum Street : Cincinnati, Ohio : : Case No. Plaintiff, : : v. : : BERETTA U.S.A. CORP. : c/o Mr. Billy Padgett, : Registered Agent : Dellvale Place : Riverside, California : : BRYCO ARMS, INC. : c/o Mr. Gary B. Genske, : Registered Agent : Central Avenue : Chino, California : : COLT S MANUFACTURING : CO., INC. : c/o The Prentice-Hall Corporation : System, Registered Agent : 1013 Centre Road : Wilmington, Delaware : COMPLAINT : (WITH JURY DEMAND) DAVIS INDUSTRIES : c/o Mr. James Davis, : Registered Agent : Sierra Bonita Lane : Chino, California : : FABRICA D ARMI PIETRO : BERETTA Sp.A. : c/o Dr. Ugo Gussalli-Beretta : Via Pietro Beretta : Gardone Val Trompia : Brescia, Italy : :

2 FORJAS TAURUS, S.A. : c/o Luis Fernando Costa Estimates : Avenue of the Fort : 511 Porto Alegra City Quarter : Vila Ipiranga State Rs CEP : Brazil : : H & R 1871, INC. : c/o Mr. John Kilcoyne, : Registered Agent : 4 E. Kendall Street : Worcester, Massachusetts : : B.L. JENNINGS, INC. : c/o Mr. Bruce L. Jennings, : Registered Agent : Post Office Box 1605 : 1285 Hiddenwoods Drive : Zephyr Cove, Nevada : : MKS SUPPLY, INC., : d/b/a HI-POINT FIREARMS : c/o Thomas Deeb, : Registered Agent : 4251 Flowers Road : Mansfield, Ohio : : LORCIN ENGINEERING CO., INC. : c/o Paracorp Incorporated, : Registered Agent : 640 Bercut Drive, Suite A : Sacramento, California : : NORTH AMERICAN ARMS, INC. : c/o CT Corporation System, : Registered Agent : 50 W. Broadway, 8th Floor : Salt Lake City, Utah : : PHOENIX ARMS : c/o Mr. David Barzeau, : Registered Agent : 1420 S. Archibald Avenue : Chino, California : : 2

3 RAVEN ARMS, INC. : c/o Mr. David Barzeau, : Registered Agent : 1300 Bixby Drive : City of Industry, California : : SMITH & WESSON CORP. : c/o The Corporation Trust Company, : Registered Agent : 1209 Orange Street : Wilmington, Delaware : : STURM & RUGER CO., INC. : c/o The Corporation Trust Company, : Registered Agent : 1209 Orange Street : Wilmington, Delaware : : TAURUS INTERNATIONAL : MANUFACTURING, INC. : c/o Coprolite Corporation, : Registered Agent : 1400-A Amerifirst Building : One SE Third Avenue : Miami, Florida : : AMERICAN SHOOTING SPORTS : COALITION, INC. : c/o Mr. Richard Feldman, : Registered Agent : 1845 The Exchange, Suite 150 : Atlanta, Georgia : : NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS : FOUNDATION, INC. : c/o Richard Rose, Esq., : Registered Agent : Cummings & Lockwood : 10 Stamford Forum : Stamford, Connecticut : : and : : 3

4 SPORTING ARMS AND : AMMUNITION MANUFACTURER S : INSTITUTE, INC. : c/o Richard Rose, Esq., : Registered Agent : Cummings & Lockwood : 10 Stamford Forum : Stamford, Connecticut : : Defendants. : Now comes the plaintiff, the City of Cincinnati, and for its complaint against defendants states as follows. NATURE OF THE ACTION This is a civil action for injunctive relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages against defendants who, by their actions, have knowingly and deliberately, and for their own financial benefit, designed and marketed handguns in a manner that foreseeably injures the City of Cincinnati and its residents. For years, the defendant gun manufacturers and their agents have had the ability to design guns that would prevent many tragic shootings, which result in death and injury to innocent persons including children. Among other feasible design alternatives, gun manufacturers have been able to utilize various types of available technology to make guns that authorized persons could fire, but unauthorized or unintended users could not. Such self-locking devices would personalize guns and prevent firearm injuries and deaths that will continue to occur in Cincinnati when children and other unauthorized or unintended users gain access to guns. Gun manufacturers and their agents have refused to implement these and other features to make their dangerous weapons more safe, or to prevent foreseeable injuries and deaths suffered by the residents of the City of Cincinnati. Instead, gun manufacturers and distributors design, manufacture, assemble, distribute, promote, market and sell 4

5 handguns without adequate mechanisms and warnings to prevent unintentional shootings and shootings by unauthorized or unintended users. Defendants have likewise deceived, misled and confused the City of Cincinnati and its residents regarding the safety of guns. In marketing their product, gun manufacturers and other defendants promote the fallacy that the use of guns will increase home safety and security, without mentioning the fact that guns actually increase the risk and incidence of homicides, suicide and intentional and unintentional injuries to gun owners, their families and friends. The defendants also over-promote the purported self-defense and home protection benefits of their guns, in a manner that undercuts any warnings or instructions regarding safe storage of guns, and which results not only in irresponsible people possessing guns, but in the irresponsible storage and handling of guns as well. Moreover, defendant gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers and their agents have, for years, recklessly and knowingly engaged in conduct that promotes and sustains an illegal gun market, which arms juveniles, convicted felons and other unauthorized or illegal users with lethal weapons. Defendants have, for example, marketed and distributed their guns without sufficient controls. Such conduct fuels crime in the City of Cincinnati and elsewhere. Such conduct facilitated the deaths of fourteen-year-old Jerome Bush, who shot himself in the head with a.22 caliber revolver, and his girlfriend, sixteen-year-old Shonda Ritenour, who shot herself with a.38 caliber revolver that her mother had purchased after a recent burglary. It enabled Daniel T. Williams, who had a criminal history, to ambush and shoot Cincinnati Police Officer Kathleen Conway four times in her lower abdomen and thigh, before Officer Conway shot him to death with her service revolver. It armed Alonzo Davenport, who shot and killed Police Officer Daniel Pope and Specialist Ronald Jeter with a stolen.38 caliber revolver, before turning the revolver on himself. And it put his father s.22 5

6 caliber revolver in the hands of Jason Syme who, at the culmination of an afternoon filled with gunplay, shot and killed his fourteen-year-old friend, Jeffrey Schulte. As a result of such reckless conduct by defendants, the City of Cincinnati has and continues to suffer irreparable harm, and to incur financial damages, including significant expenses for additional police protection, overtime, emergency services, pension benefits, health care, social services and other necessary facilities and services. In addition, the City of Cincinnati has sustained a loss of investment, economic development and tax revenue due to lost productivity all associated with the defective design, and negligent manufacture, assembly, marketing, distribution, promotion and sale of guns. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE [PLAINTIFF] 1. Plaintiff, the City of Cincinnati [ Cincinnati] is a municipal corporation organized under the law of the State of Ohio, and acting pursuant to the Charter of the City of Cincinnati, through its City Solicitor. Cincinnati brings this action on behalf of itself and its residents to obtain monetary, injunctive and other equitable relief. [DEFENDANTS MANUFACTURERS] 2. The following defendants manufacture, distribute and/or sell firearms that are found in and around Cincinnati [the Defendant Manufacturers ]. 3. Defendant, Beretta U.S.A. Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Maryland, with its principal place of business in Maryland, that designs, manufactures, advertises, imports and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 4. Defendant Bryco Arms, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada, with its principal place of business in California, that designs, 6

7 manufacturers, advertises and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 5. Defendant Colt s Manufacturing Co. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Connecticut, that designs, manufacturers, advertises and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 6. Defendant Davis Industries is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in California, that designs, manufacturers, advertises and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 7. Defendant Fabrica D Armi Pietro Beretta Sp.A. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Italy, with its principal place of business in Italy, that designs, manufacturers, advertises and/or sells firearms to Beretta U.S.A., Inc., that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 8. Defendant Forjas Taurus, S.A., is a Brazilian corporation with its principal place of business in Brazil, that designs, manufacturers, advertises and/or sells firearm parts and firearms to Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc., that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 9. Defendant H & R 1871, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts, with its principal place of business in Massachusetts, that designs, manufactures, advertises and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 10. Defendant B.L. Jennings, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada, with its principal place of business in Nevada, that designs, 7

8 manufactures, advertises and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 11. Defendant Lorcin Engineering Co., Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in California, that designs, manufacturers, advertises and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 12. Defendant MKS Supply, Inc., d/b/a Hi-Point Firearms [ Hi-Point ], is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal place of business in Ohio, that designs, manufacturers, advertises and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 13. Defendant North American Arms is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Utah, with its principal place of business in Utah, that designs, manufacturers, advertises and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 14. Defendant Phoenix Arms is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in California, that designs, manufacturers, advertises and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 15. Defendant Raven Arms, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in California, that designs, manufacturers, advertises and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 16. Defendant, Smith & Wesson Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Massachusetts, that 8

9 designs, manufacturers, advertises and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 17. Defendant, Sturm & Ruger Co. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Connecticut, that designs, manufacturers, advertises and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. 18. Defendant Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business in Florida, that designs, manufacturers, advertises and/or sells firearms that can be fired by unauthorized or unintended users in Cincinnati. [DEFENDANTS TRADE ASSOCIATIONS] 19. The following defendants are industry trade associations [ Defendant Trade Associations ], which are composed of firearms manufacturers and sellers, including some or all of the Defendant Manufacturers. 20. Defendant American Shooting Sports Coalition, Inc. [ ASSC ] is a tax-exempt business league under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, organized under the laws of the State of Georgia, with its principal office in Georgia. ASSC is an industry trade association composed of handgun manufacturers and sellers, including some or all of the Defendant Manufacturers. 21. Defendant National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. [ NSSF ] is a tax-exempt business league under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, with its principal office in Connecticut. NSSF is an industry trade association composed of handgun manufacturers and sellers, including some or all of the Defendant Manufacturers. 9

10 22. Defendant Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer s Institute, Inc. [ SAAMI ] is a tax-exempt business league under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, with its principal office in Connecticut. SAAMI is an industry trade association composed of handgun manufacturers and sellers, including some or all of the Defendant Manufacturers. JURISDICTION 23. Each defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of the Ohio courts by virtue of their doing or transacting business in Ohio, by causing an injurious effect in Ohio through an act or omission elsewhere, and/or by their commission of a tortious act in Ohio. VENUE 24. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 3. Defendant, Hi-Point is organized and domiciled in the State of Ohio. The actions of Hi- Point, and the other defendants, that give rise to Cincinnati s claims for relief took place in Hamilton County, Ohio. Defendants have marketed, advertised and supplied guns in Hamilton County, Ohio, and continue to market, advertise and supply guns in Hamilton County, Ohio. Defendants have and continue to receive substantial revenue, income and profits from the sale of guns in Hamilton County, Ohio. Further, the damages suffered by plaintiff, that give rise to its cause of action, occurred in Hamilton County, Ohio. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS [DESIGN, MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF UNSAFE FIREARMS] 25. For many years, the City of Cincinnati and its residents have suffered harm and incurred significant costs and expenses associated with the manufacture, marketing, promotion and sale of firearms that are defective and unreasonably dangerous under the laws of the State of Ohio. 10

11 26. In addition to other defective and unreasonably dangerous design features, lack of safety features and inadequate warnings described herein, defendants firearms are unreasonably dangerous because they can be and are fired by unauthorized users including, but not limited to, children, criminals, mentally unstable persons and others who put themselves and others at risk when they possess such a firearm. 27. This action is brought under the laws of the State of Ohio for injunctive relief, to recover damages, and for such other relief that is appropriate, for the harm unjustly, intentionally and wrongfully done and continuing to be done to Cincinnati and its residents by the various defendants. These defendants have been and continue to be unjustly enriched at the expense of Cincinnati and its residents. 28. The defendants are companies and organizations who manufacture, distribute, promote, market, sell and/or instruct in the use of firearms that are sold: without the means to prevent their being fired by unauthorized users; without adequate warnings that would prevent such shootings by alerting users of the risks of guns and the importance of the proper storage of guns; and without other available safety features and warnings that would prevent unintentional shootings and shooting by unauthorized users. 29. The actions by these defendants have caused Cincinnati to incur substantial costs and expenses in order to provide necessary services including, but not limited to, medical, police, court, corrections and emergency services. All of these costs are borne by Cincinnati as a result of the defendants wrongful conduct. Further, Cincinnati has also lost substantial tax revenues due to lost worker productivity, lost tourism, and reduced property values. 30. At all relevant times, it has been feasible for defendants to manufacture, market, promote and/or sell firearms that prevent unintentional shootings and shootings by unauthorized users. Such firearms would incorporate safety devices intended to 11

12 prevent unauthorized users from firing the guns when they take possession of them. Nonetheless, defendants have failed to incorporate such devices into their firearms. 31. Defendants guns are defective and unreasonably dangerous in that, among other things, they enable any person who gains access to them including children to fire them. They also do not adequately prevent shootings when the user is unaware that a round is in the chamber. Defendants guns are additionally distributed without adequate warnings and instructions as to their risks, and as to proper storage and use. In fact, defendants firearms are marketed and promoted in a manner that not only suggests that they do not pose such risks to users and their households, but that suggests, promotes and encourages unsafe storage practices. 32. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable that, without the aid of additional design features and/or warning devices, defendants guns would be used in tragic, preventable shootings including shootings by unauthorized users. Many of these shootings are unintentional, often by children who do not fully understand or appreciate how to properly handle a gun, or understand the risks associated with a gun. 33. With regard to semi-automatic firearms it was likewise reasonably foreseeable that users, including adolescents, would mistakenly believe that a semi-automatic gun would not fire if the ammunition magazine was removed. It was also reasonably foreseeable that users of semi-automatic guns would not understand or appreciate that an undetectable round of ammunition may be housed in the firing chamber of the gun, even though the detectable ammunition magazine had been removed or unloaded. Consequently, it was reasonably foreseeable that this hazardous design feature would result in preventable, unintentional shootings given defendants designs. 34. Defendants were, at all relevant times, aware of these inherent and unreasonable dangers in the design of their firearms. 12

13 35. The design of defendants guns, which enable any person who gains possession of such guns to fire them, and which do not make users aware that a round of ammunition is housed in the firing chamber, results in thousands of unintentional shooting deaths and non-fatal injuries every year. 36. The General Accounting Office [ GAO ] estimated that each year, 23% of the 1,400 to 1,500 unintentional shooting deaths occur because the user of the gun was not aware that a round of ammunition had been loaded into the gun s firing chamber. This results in as many as 230 to 345 deaths nationwide each year. For each of these deaths, there are countless other unintentional shooting injuries that are not fatal. A number of these unintentional shootings occur in Cincinnati. 37. Numerous deaths caused by an undetected round of ammunition in the firing chamber occur as a result of the accidental shooting of one person by an unintended user of a gun. Such accidents often involve adolescents. According to the GAO, approximately 35% of all unintentional shooting deaths involve users of guns who are between the ages of 13 and 16 adolescents who are naturally attracted to accessible guns, and who notoriously discount the risks associated with handling a firearm. A number of these unintentional shootings occur in Cincinnati. 38. The design of defendants guns, which enable any person who gains possession of the guns to fire them, also results in thousands of adolescent suicides. Studies indicate that the odds that potentially suicidal adolescents will kill themselves double when a gun is kept in the home. Moreover, one youth between the ages of 10 and 19 commits suicide approximately every six hours. Guns are the method used in 85% of male teen suicides, and 47% of female teen suicides. Among 15 to 19 year olds, firearm-related suicides have been estimated to account for 81% of the increase in the overall suicide rate from 1980 to

14 39. The design of defendants guns, which enable any person who gains possession of the guns to fire them, also results in thousands of homicides by unauthorized users, including juveniles. Many of these homicide victims are themselves children and teenagers. These perpetrators often gain access to guns in their homes or through theft. 40. At all relevant times, its was reasonably foreseeable that defendants guns would fall into the hands of unintended users. The Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key children have access to guns in their homes. There are guns in approximately one-half the homes in this country. One survey reports that 30% of gun-owners who have children in the home keep their guns loaded. Another survey reports that 36% of gun owners with children in the home keep their guns unlocked. In one survey, nearly 60% of children between the ages of 10 and 19 responded that they can acquire a gun should they want one. The same survey reports that 15% of children between the ages of 10 and 19 reported that they had carried a gun on their person in the past 30 days. Therefore, it is reasonably foreseeable that, when unintended users gain access to guns, those guns are loaded or the user can obtain ammunition. 41. It is reasonably foreseeable that, when unintended users gain access to guns, tragic preventable shootings will result. It is also reasonably foreseeable that many of these shootings will be unintentional, and many will involve children both as victims and shooters. It is also reasonably foreseeable that many of these shootings will involve suicides by children and adolescents. Lastly, it is reasonably foreseeable that many of these shootings will involve homicides by juveniles. 42. At the time defendants manufactured, distributed, promoted and/or sold these guns, defendants knew or should have known of the unreasonable dangers of their guns, including those described in the preceding paragraphs. Defendants were also aware of, 14

15 and had available to them, safety devices, warnings and other measures that would prevent and/or decrease these dangers. 43. Defendants failed to remedy these deficiencies in their guns, warnings, instructions, promotions and advertising. Defendants also failed to adequately warn customers of these dangers, failed to inform customers and distributors of available devices and measures that could prevent or decrease these dangers, and failed to incorporate these life-saving devices into their guns. 44. Residents of Cincinnati including its children are continually put at risk and victimized by defendants unreasonably dangerous products. Year after year, Cincinnati children are grievously injured or killed because defendants guns are sold without the means to prevent their use by unauthorized users, without adequate warnings that would prevent such shootings (i.e., alerting users of the risks of guns and of the importance of proper gun storage), and without other safety features that would prevent shootings by unauthorized users. For example: On July 8, 1997, while showing off a loaded.38 caliber revolver in front of two female friends in his family s garage, seventeen-yearold Geramy Lilly pointed the gun to his head and fired a bullet into the right side. On July 23, 1997, fourteen-year-old Jerome Bush shot himself in the head with a.22 caliber revolver. Twenty-two days later, on August 15, 1997, Jerome Bush s girlfriend, sixteen-year-old Shonda Ritenour shot herself with a.38 caliber revolver that her mother had purchased after a recent burglary. On July 8, 1996 at the culmination of an afternoon filled with gunplay, and after he had already held the gun to a twelve-year-old boy s head and pulled the trigger without the gun firing fourteen-year-old Jason Syme 15

16 fired a fully loaded.22 caliber revolver, that he had taken without permission from his father, at and killed fourteen-year-old Jeffrey Schulte. 45. In the last five years 1993 through 1998 forty children under the age of eighteen died of gunshot wounds in the Greater Cincinnati area. 46. Additionally, In February, 1998, Cincinnati Police Officer Kathleen Conway was ambushed and shot four times in her lower abdomen and thigh with a Smith & Wesson.357 magnum. Shortly before midnight on December 5, 1997, Alonzo Davenport shot and killed Police Officer Daniel Pope and Specialist Ronald Jeter during a domestic violence call with a stolen.38 caliber revolver. On October 27, 1997, shortly after midnight, five juveniles entered the College Hill Dairy Mart, held a gun to the clerk, Khalid Siddique s head and demanded that he open a cash register. Mr. Siddique was shot opening the register. On March 11, 1996, fourteen-year-old Marcel Gordon was killed when he and his nineteenyear-old brother, Antonio Gordon, where playing with their stepfather s.38 caliber handgun and the gun accidentally fired. 47. These tragedies demonstrate that the residents of Cincinnati are under a continuing threat of injury and death, particularly to children, from defendants unreasonably dangerous products. 48. At all relevant times, defendants purposefully and intentionally engaged in these activities, and continue to do so, knowing full well that their products could be sold and/or made with the means to prevent their firing by unauthorized users. Defendants knew or should have known that their warnings and instructions were inadequate to alert 16

17 owners and foreseeable users of the risks posed by their guns, and that the advertising used to promote those products was likely to cause many owners to store their guns unlocked and/or loaded. 49. The defendants further knew that, by failing to sell and/or make their firearms with the means to prevent their firing by unauthorized users, it was reasonably foreseeable that guns stolen from private residences, gun stores and other locations could be employed by unauthorized users in violent criminal acts. 50. Furthermore, defendants purposefully and intentionally engaged in these activities knowing full well that Cincinnati residents and police officers would foreseeably fall victim to death or serious injuries caused by the actions of unauthorized users of guns. As a consequence, it was also reasonably foreseeable that Cincinnati would be forced to bear substantial expenses as a result of these acts. 51. At all relevant times, the defendants purposefully and intentionally engaged in these activities, and continue to do so, knowing full well that Cincinnati, in its role of providing protection and care for its citizens, would provide or pay for additional police protection, emergency services, pension benefits, health care and other necessary services due to the threat posed by the use of defendants products. In addition, defendants knew or should have known that Cincinnati would be harmed as a result of the injuries to certain of its residents and police officers caused by the defendants products, as well as by the loss of substantial tax revenue. 52. At all relevant times, defendants who account for most of the handguns sold to the general public have acted in concert, tacitly agreed, colluded, cooperated, and adhered to industry standards and customs with respect to, among other things: 17

18 A. their failure to develop and implement the means to prevent their guns from being fired by unauthorized users; B. discouraging the development and implementation of the means to prevent guns from being fired by unauthorized users; C. their failure to develop and implement other safety features; and D. their failure to issue adequate warnings alerting users of the risks of guns and to the importance of proper storage of guns. [FALSE AND MISLEADING ADVERTISING AND STATEMENTS] 53. For years, defendants have knowingly, purposefully and intentionally misled, deceived and confused the residents of Cincinnati regarding the safety of handguns. 54. Defendants misled, deceived and confused residents by claiming through advertising and promotion of their firearms that the ownership and possession of firearms in the home increases protection of one s home and person, without mentioning that studies and statistics show that firearms in the home actually increase the risk of harm to firearm owners and their families. Indeed, studies have indicated that: A. one out of three handguns is kept loaded and unlocked in the home; B. guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill or injure someone known by their owners, than to kill or injure an intruder; C. the risk of homicide is three times greater with guns in the home; D. the risk of suicide is five times greater with guns in the home; E. a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes when someone is home; 18

19 F. for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and eleven attempted or completed suicides; and G. in 60% of fatal accidents involving a firearm, the weapon was located in or near the home. 55. The defendants have known, or should know, of the dangers of guns in the home and what the consequences of widespread availability without restraints or limits were long ago. For example, more than 30 years ago, in 1968, a staff report of the U.S. Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, entitled Handguns and Violence in American Life, noted an increasing number of deaths and injuries and concluded: (pages xiii & 139). [Americans] may seriously overrate the effectiveness of guns in protection of their homes. In our urbanized society the gun is rarely an effective means of protecting the home against either the burglar or the robber.... [A gun in the home] provides a measure of comfort to a great many Americans, but, for the homeowner, this comfort is largely an illusion bought at the high price of increased accidents, homicides, and more widespread illegal use of guns.... When the number of handguns increases, gun violence increases. 56. Defendants knew or should have known these statistics, but ignored and belittled them in an effort to promote their handguns as insurance for the home. 57. Defendants, through their advertisements, have also misled, deceived and confused people by suggesting, encouraging and promoting unsafe storage and/or placement of handguns. Defendants conduct also over-promotes the efficacy and utility of handguns for self-defense and home protection purposes, in a manner which undercuts any warnings or instructions provided regarding safe storage and handling. 19

20 [NEGLIGENT MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION] 58. Cincinnati, like most major cities in the United States, is faced with significant levels of violent crime. Many of the violent crimes that occur in Cincinnati are committed with firearms that are possessed and used illegally. 59. The widespread availability and misuse of firearms by juveniles, felons, and other unauthorized users is a national problem. Firearms are the instrumentalities most commonly used in homicides. Firearms were used to commit 69% of all homicides in 1995, and were used to commit 68% of all homicides in They are involved in the deaths of approximately 35,000 persons each year. In 1995, there were 35,957 deaths attributable to firearms. The high level of gun violence has had a particularly drastic impact on young persons. Between 1985 and 1994, the firearm death rate for juveniles increased by 104%. From 1987 to 1989, the rate of increase more than doubled, to between 23 and 25%. In 1990, 82% of all homicides of persons between the ages of 15 and 19 were committed with handguns. Homicide is the second leading cause of death for youth aged 15 to In Cincinnati, there were 25 homicide victims in 1998, 10 of whom were killed with firearms, and at least one of whom was under the age of 18. In 1997, there were 39 homicide victims, 15 of whom were killed with firearms, and one of whom was under the age of 18. The number of homicides committed with firearms was as high as 27 in 1995, when six of the victims were under the age of 18. For each firearm homicide victim, there are approximately three persons who are hospitalized with firearm injuries. 61. During 1998 alone, there were 273 robberies and 116 assaults in Cincinnati, in which firearms were used. During 1998, the Cincinnati Police recovered 856 firearms, 669 of which were handguns, and 388 of which were semi-automatics. 62. This staggering toll of gun violence is fueled by the ready availability of firearms to unauthorized and illegal users through an illegal firearms market. A recent 20